John Dehlin Attempting To Change Bishop's Interviews

[why me]

And if the interview discovers sexual activity there won't be private contact with the bishop at different times of the day to work through their issues? It's the same opportunity that the priests took advantage of and the same percentage of abusers exists in the LDS pool as the priest pool and the rest of society.

Not really. Catholic priests would work with youth quite often if that was a part of their vocation. And this was one reason why they may have become priests especially the ones with the problem. Usually, when a bishop gives a personal worthiness interview the parents are informed. Being a lds bishop is not a vocation but a calling. The chances of something happening on a sunday in the bishops office is slim. And if the parent has given the talk to their kids, they would be on the lookout for any signs regardless of the adult and the reason for being alone with that adult.

[Yirgacheffe]

Not really. Catholic priests would work with youth quite often if that was a part of their vocation. And this was one reason why they may have become priests especially the ones with the problem. Usually, when a bishop gives a personal worthiness interview the parents are informed. Being a lds bishop is not a vocation but a calling. The chances of something happening on a sunday in the bishops office is slim. And if the parent has given the talk to their kids, they would be on the lookout for any signs regardless of the adult and the reason for being alone with that adult.

Sorry I don't find this convincing at all, the LDS system is as open to being gamed by abusers as is the Catholic system.

[why me]

This is how much I know, can all ages confess to the Priest in the Catholic faith?  Or is there an age limit?  How about other faiths, how does that take place?  I'm thinking the Evangelicals don't have confessionals with clergy, but could be wrong.  And they do emphasize a personal relationship with the Lord, so they may just have that confession to worry about.

Once a child can make their communion they can go into the booth and confess their sins.

https://www.ncregister.com/info/confession_guide_for_children/

https://www.ncregister.com/info/confession_guide_for_children/

So, we are looking at children who are 7 or 8 years old. When I was a boy, my confessions were usually simple: I talked back to my mom and dad, I cursed. And I stole a candy bar.

Edited May 4, 2014 by why me

[why me]

Sorry I don't find this convincing at all, the LDS system is as open to being gamed by abusers as is the Catholic system.

Well, perverts are everywhere. However, the lds system is open to abuse not from the bishop in particular but from other sources. For example, when the young men go camping with their leaders etc. Or when the young men go on a chaperoned trip together. But being in the bishop's office during a personal worthiness interview may not be where the problem would show itself.

Edited May 4, 2014 by why me

[Yirgacheffe]

Well, perverts are everywhere. However, the lds system is open to abuse not from the bishop in particular but from other sources. For example, when the young men go camping with their leaders etc. Or when the young men go on a chaperoned trip together. But being in the bishop's office during a personal worthiness interview may not be where the problem would show itself.

As I said I don't see it that way, the bishop is not an exception and a "personal worthiness interview" a perfect grooming opportunity. We may as well end our conversation because we are never going to agree here since I not only do not see the necessity of such interviews but find them uncalled for. Letting your kids be alone with adults is always a risk/benefit calculation, I don't see any benefit in this particular adult/child situation.

[Storm Rider]

As I said I don't see it that way, the bishop is not an exception and a "personal worthiness interview" a perfect grooming opportunity. We may as well end our conversation because we are never going to agree here since I not only do not see the necessity of such interviews but find them uncalled for. Letting your kids be alone with adults is always a risk/benefit calculation, I don't see any benefit in this particular adult/child situation.

 

So you would have to admit that parents, usually the prime abusers of children, should also not be allowed to be alone with their children, right?

[Yirgacheffe]

So you would have to admit that parents, usually the prime abusers of children, should also not be allowed to be alone with their children, right?

For me the question is who I will allow my children be alone with and the situations that warrant that access.

[Bikeemikey]

For me the question is who I will allow my children be alone with and the situations that warrant that access.

Agreed!

[why me]

I have NO knowledge as to how things work in the world of LDS apologetics, but I do know that "changes were made" around the time of the planned publication of the Dehlin "feature." That being said, it is my hope that the Church realized that ad hominem attacks by those who seek to defend it are counterproductive.

And yes, I realize the irony of ME accusing others of "not playing nice." However. since I have no connection with the Church, BYU or even reality, it's a [saint] of different color, so to speak.

I don't think that the church is concerned with apologetics very much. They have no control over apologetics. And who is the church but the people who are members of it. But really, lds apologetics are made up of various individuals that do it out of love for the church and as a hobby. The Dehlin feature did not actually create any changes. People were not fired or dismissed because of a Dehlin feature.

[why me]

For me the question is who I will allow my children be alone with and the situations that warrant that access.

The problem is very simple. You cannot be there when the child is with the teacher after school or with a coach or with a school counselor etc. Unless of course, you instruct the teacher never to be alone with your child, not even during a help session etc. The chances of being molested by a coach is far more likely than being molested during a bishop's interview.

[Calm]

I have NO knowledge as to how things work in the world of LDS apologetics, but I do know that "changes were made" around the time of the planned publication of the Dehlin "feature."

We got a new car at about the same time. There was no connection to Dehlin.

Dr. Bradford published a piece long before stating where he wanted the direction of Mormon Studies to go, apologetics as in defending truth claims really didn't have a place in there. He had already delayed publication of the Review on various issues overtime. Dan pulled the piece as soon as requested, even though no one complaining about it had even read it. Changes made after that were directly in line with how Dr. Bradford had written his vision years before.

Rod Meldrum or his fans think he is the reason why Dan got kicked out. There is a lot of satisfaction to the ego I suppose in thinking one is the cause of someone being fired, but given evidence I don't think one needs to go any further than pointing out the fundamental difference of vision that existed long before.

Edited May 4, 2014 by calmoriah

[mormonnewb]

We got a new car at about the same time. There was no connection to Dehlin.

Dr. Bradford published a piece long before stating where he wanted the direction of Mormon Studies to go, apologetics as in defending truth claims really didn't have a place in there. He had already delayed publication of the Review on various issues overtime. Dan pulled the piece as soon as requested, even though no one complaining about it had even read it. Changes made after that were directly in line with how Dr. Bradford had written his vision years before.

Rod Meldrum or his fans think he is the reason why Dan got kicked out. There is a lot of satisfaction to the ego I suppose in thinking one is the cause of someone being fired, but given evidence I don't think one needs to go any further than pointing out the fundamental difference of vision that existed long before.

Did a GA get a call about your proposed new car and then call asking you not to buy it? If you and others were soon thereafter fired, then perhaps your new car was the cause and you should be ashamed of yourself!

As for the specific cause, what seems apparent is that there was trepidation from a power that be about running Dehlin-like features and that decisions were made to take a different "editorial direction." Assuming that you are correct about the fact that this decision had been made years prior (and I have NO reason to doubt you), it still would seem to be the case that the Church's "preferred style" of apologetics is NOT personal attacks. As a result, my GUESS is that those who engage in "bully apologetics" are probably not going to be looking for Provo real estate anytime soon.

By the way, given your apologetic "style," I would imagine that you would be pleased with this shift in "editorial direction" as it seems more in line with your sensibilities.

[Pahoran]

http://thestudentreview.org/controversy-over-dismissal-of-byu-professor/

Really? Let's see what it says:

"This tension and clash of ideologies within the Maxwell Institute came to a head when an anonymous source inside the Institute leaked material to Dehlin, advising him that Gregory Smith, one of the co-editors of the Mormon Studies Review, had prepared a detailed, heavily-referenced critique of Dehlin’s online material and podcast series. Dehlin responded by e-mailing a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy in late March and asking 'if this is this something that you feel is appropriate for FARMS to do?' Noting that his source reported that the Institute was preparing a “hit piece” against him, Dehlin denounced the article (which he had not then, and still has not read) and warned, 'If such a piece is, indeed, in the works — I would like notice so that I can contact Elder [Apostle] as well. My guess is that he wouldn’t approve of this either.'"

Note that in describing the Smith review as a "Dehlin ad hominem fest," you are explicitly parrotting the Dehlin party line. And that accusation was fabricated entirely without any evidence.

Fabricated.

Entirely.

Without any evidence.

Neither Dehlin nor any of the people he bleated to had read the review at the time he started bleating. Rather, he was setting out to suppress a review which he feared would spill the beans about what's really going on with his so-called "Mormon Stories" podcasts.

Note also that your source does not support the assumption that DCP was dismissed from the NAMIRS over the Smith review, because he pulled it from publication as soon as it was queried.

Your smugness is misplaced.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Did a GA get a call about your proposed new car and then call asking you not to buy it? If you and others were soon thereafter fired, then perhaps your new car was the cause and you should be ashamed of yourself!

As for the specific cause, what seems apparent is that there was trepidation from a power that be about running Dehlin-like features and that decisions were made to take a different "editorial direction." Assuming that you are correct about the fact that this decision had been made years prior (and I have NO reason to doubt you), it still would seem to be the case that the Church's "preferred style" of apologetics is NOT personal attacks. As a result, my GUESS is that those who engage in "bully apologetics" are probably not going to be looking for Provo real estate anytime soon.

By the way, given your apologetic "style," I would imagine that you would be pleased with this shift in "editorial direction" as it seems more in line with your sensibilities.

Sorry to interrupt you while you bask in your comfortable Schadenfreude, but Dan Peterson is still teaching at BYU, and still lives in the same house he lived in before.

Just so you know.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Bikeemikey]

Really? Let's see what it says:

"This tension and clash of ideologies within the Maxwell Institute came to a head when an anonymous source inside the Institute leaked material to Dehlin, advising him that Gregory Smith, one of the co-editors of the Mormon Studies Review, had prepared a detailed, heavily-referenced critique of Dehlin’s online material and podcast series. Dehlin responded by e-mailing a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy in late March and asking 'if this is this something that you feel is appropriate for FARMS to do?' Noting that his source reported that the Institute was preparing a “hit piece” against him, Dehlin denounced the article (which he had not then, and still has not read) and warned, 'If such a piece is, indeed, in the works — I would like notice so that I can contact Elder [Apostle] as well. My guess is that he wouldn’t approve of this either.'"

Note that in describing the Smith review as a "Dehlin ad hominem fest," you are explicitly parrotting the Dehlin party line. And that accusation was fabricated entirely without any evidence.

Fabricated.

Entirely.

Without any evidence.

Neither Dehlin nor any of the people he bleated to had read the review at the time he started bleating. Rather, he was setting out to suppress a review which he feared would spill the beans about what's really going on with his so-called "Mormon Stories" podcasts.

Note also that your source does not support the assumption that DCP was dismissed from the NAMIRS over the Smith review, because he pulled it from publication as soon as it was queried.

Your smugness is misplaced.

Regards,

Pahoran

Were you involved in this first hand? Edited May 4, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[Pahoran]

Were you involved in this first hand?

At first hand? No, but I was in touch with DCP and others "on the ground" at the time. (Actually DCP wasn't on the ground. He was "in the air." The courageous Dr. Bradford waited for him to go on an overseas trip before firing him.)

However, I point out that the one and only source that mormonnewb cited in favour of the Dehlinite version actually supports me rather than him.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Bikeemikey]

At first hand? No, but I was in touch with DCP and others "on the ground" at the time. (Actually DCP wasn't on the ground. He was "in the air." The courageous Dr. Bradford waited for him to go on an overseas trip before firing him.)

However, I point out that the one and only source that mormonnewb cited in favour of the Dehlinite version actually supports me rather than him.

Regards,

Pahoran

I asked not to dispute your account but in the hope that you actually had first hand accounts.

It appears you are simply "in the other camp".

Thanks.

[mormonnewb]

Really? Let's see what it says:"This tension and clash of ideologies within the Maxwell Institute came to a head when an anonymous source inside the Institute leaked material to Dehlin, advising him that Gregory Smith, one of the co-editors of the Mormon Studies Review, had prepared a detailed, heavily-referenced critique of Dehlin’s online material and podcast series. Dehlin responded by e-mailing a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy in late March and asking 'if this is this something that you feel is appropriate for FARMS to do?' Noting that his source reported that the Institute was preparing a “hit piece” against him, Dehlin denounced the article (which he had not then, and still has not read) and warned, 'If such a piece is, indeed, in the works — I would like notice so that I can contact Elder [Apostle] as well. My guess is that he wouldn’t approve of this either.'"Note that in describing the Smith review as a "Dehlin ad hominem fest," you are explicitly parrotting the Dehlin party line. And that accusation was fabricated entirely without any evidence.Fabricated.Entirely.Without any evidence.Neither Dehlin nor any of the people he bleated to had read the review at the time he started bleating. Rather, he was setting out to suppress a review which he feared would spill the beans about what's really going on with his so-called "Mormon Stories" podcasts.Note also that your source does not support the assumption that DCP was dismissed from the NAMIRS over the Smith review, because he pulled it from publication as soon as it was queried.Your smugness is misplaced.Regards,Pahoran

But the review has been published since. I read about half of it before I couldn't go any further. I should have known that this was going to qualify as "scholastic" when this "important" piece of information was given early in the 100-page tome.

"Dehlin is likely unknown to most members; he is probably best known on-line for his podcast series Mormon Stories. He has twice discontinued the podcast but then resumed it, together with appeals for ongoing financial support. Dehlin was to be paid a salary of $40,000 dollars by his non-profit organization in 2012."

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/SMITH1-Review-Mormon-Stories.pdf

That certainly settled it for me! After all, if a guy is paid $40,000 in a year, then what else is there really to say? Charlatan! Thief!

Of course, that's just a snippet of the high-level academic scholarship that is employed to bolster the Church's truth claims. We also have a detailed discussion of Dehlin's repentance/reconciliation process with his stake president and several online arguments between dehlin and various critics. Certainly, nothing gives a more fair and balanced view of a Nan's life history than snippets from 3 am message board discussions.

I have no idea why Dehlin was worried about this piece in the first place because it is a far more potent argument against its authors than against him.

[Pahoran]

But the review has been published since. I read about half of it before I couldn't go any further. I should have known that this was going to qualify as "scholastic" when this "important" piece of information was given early in the 100-page tome.

"Dehlin is likely unknown to most members; he is probably best known on-line for his podcast series Mormon Stories. He has twice discontinued the podcast but then resumed it, together with appeals for ongoing financial support. Dehlin was to be paid a salary of $40,000 dollars by his non-profit organization in 2012."

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/SMITH1-Review-Mormon-Stories.pdf

That certainly settled it for me! After all, if a guy is paid $40,000 in a year, then what else is there really to say? Charlatan! Thief!

As you know -- or would, had you bothered to read any more than just cherry-picking for something to confirm your predetermined assumptions -- Smith drew no such conclusions. This was merely background material.

Of course, that's just a snippet of the high-level academic scholarship that is employed to bolster the Church's truth claims. We also have a detailed discussion of Dehlin's repentance/reconciliation process with his stake president and several online arguments between dehlin and various critics. Certainly, nothing gives a more fair and balanced view of a Nan's life history than snippets from 3 am message board discussions.

But as you know -- or would, had you bothered to read any more than just cherry-picking for something to confirm your predetermined assumptions -- the Smith review was not about Mister Dehlin's "life history." It was about his so-called "Mormon Stories" podcasts.

A fact Mister Dehlin and his colleagues are eager to obfuscate.

I have no idea why Dehlin was worried about this piece in the first place because it is a far more potent argument against its authors than against him.

I'm sure such a conclusion is indeed available to an avid Dehlinite who, by his own admission, avoided reading the whole thing.

It's not available to me. But then, I actually did read it.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Calm]

Of course, that's just a snippet of the high-level academic scholarship that is employed to bolster the Church's truth claims..

I think you are confused about the purpose of the piece.

Dehlin was making certain claims about himself that were contradictory. The piece addressed the credibility of his claims about what he was doing, not the Church's. You may disagree about how it was done, but given the number of letters FM was receiving about families that were suffering after a member had become a fan of Dehlin and had left the Church, it seemed reasonable to me for this to have been done. I can see why someone who was not aware of this happening might wonder why it was needed.

"Did a GA get a call about your proposed new car and then call asking you not to buy it?"

Did a GA call about the Dehlin piece and ask that it not be published? Do you have evidence of this? Did John Dehlin ever publish a reply from his appeal to a GA that demonstrated this is what the GA actually did? Or is it possible that he just assumed this happened and then presented it as fact?

Edited May 5, 2014 by calmoriah

[Calm]

I asked not to dispute your account but in the hope that you actually had first hand accounts.

It appears you are simply "in the other camp".

Thanks.

When you mean "first hand accounts", do you mean told what happened to the best of their knowledge by those directly involved (since no one would be party to all events, not even Dehlin or DCP...Bradford comes the closest but I don't believe he ever made any public announcements on what happened with Dehlin or the article in question) or do you mean actually involved like Dehlin, DCP, Bradford, Greg Smith, President Samuelson and a few others?

Were you on the board when Dehlin came and posted half of the emails (for some reason he neglected to post some significant ones of his own and instead paraphrased them) and then Bill Hamblin posted the emails he hadn't to fill in the whole email conversation?

Edited May 5, 2014 by calmoriah

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

However, having a parent in the room may prevent those interviewed confiding they've been abused by family members.

True, but they should be allowed to have a parent or YM / YW President if they like. This would protect the child and the Bishop from things being misunderstood...the best thing is to limit the Bishop to the single question of; "Do you keep the Law of Chasity"?

If the youth says no, then another adult should be present for any follow up.

[Bikeemikey]

When you mean "first hand accounts, do you mean told what happened to the best of their knowledge by those directly involved (since no one would be party to all events, not even Dehlin or DCP...Bradford comes the closest but I don't believe he ever made any public announcements on what happened with Dehlin or the article in question) or do you mean actually involved like Dehlin, DCP, Bradford, Greg Smith, President Samuelson and a few others?

I was thinking both.

[Calm]

True, but they should be allowed to have a parent or YM / YW President if they like. This would protect the child and the Bishop from things being misunderstood...the best thing is to limit the Bishop to the single question of; "Do you keep the Law of Chasity"?

If the youth says no, then another adult should be present for any follow up.

I think a child and (an adult if the bishop isnt already familiar with them)should be given the option myself as in "would you like to have a leader or parent or someone else present during the interview or would you prefer to come in by yourself and just have someone sit outside?", but I don't think having another person should be the default position....just that people should be made aware of it as a possibility as many children and some insecure and vulnerable adults often assume they don't have a choice unless it is spelled out to them.. It is likely those who need the companionship the most who will be too unsettled to bring up or even think of the possibility.

I also think an interview should start with "if you are uncomfortable with any of the questions, just raise your hand and I will stop" up to a certain age. This is something a parent could request of the bishop and tell their child ahead of time as well. Then the parent and bishop can discuss if there needs to be more time to develop a more trusting relationship, the parent needs to create an opportunity to discuss the topic with the child or something else. Just being aware that the child or youth may be uncomfortable will lead to the majority of bishops taking greater care not to cross the line. It is likely IMO that most mistakes in this area are unintended, training for bishops often occurs on the job and parents can help out there by sharing concerns ahead of time. Training may sometimes be forgotten in actual situations, especially if a lot of subjects are covered so I don't think it is unreasonable of parents to express their own ideas. And if their ideas are extreme, that may even help the bishop be more aware of potential abuse issue (not saying that all overprotective parents are abusive, it is likely the exception but often finding out abuse is occurring is the result of observing many factors and then creating a safe place for the child to share, it doesn't always happen with the child bringing it up out of the blue...of course one has to also be careful not to lead a child to say things because one assumes there is abuse, few situations are so complicated and full of pitfalls).

At what age does a bishop start asking the Law of Chastity question?

[Calm]

I was thinking both.

Pahoran stated he had been in contact with DCP and others directly involved. Why is he disqualified then if it is both you were thinking of? Edited May 5, 2014 by calmoriah